Allowed

Sumangali Nagai Maligai v. Dbs Bank Limited

DRT3 Apr 2025SA/15/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this SARFAESI Application, the applicant challenged a Possession Notice issued by the respondent bank. The court allowed the application due to the respondent bank's failure to file a counter despite multiple adjournments, setting aside the original notice.

What did the court decide?

Possession Notice dated 15.09.2023 set aside; Bank directed not to include contested expenses in loan account.

Sumangali Nagai Maligai versus Dbs Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.15 of 2024

03.04.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 03^rd day of April, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 15 of 2024

¶9

M/s. Sumangali Nagai Maligai, Rep by its Proprietrix M.Rajeswari, 19, DDDC Buildings, Bazar Street, Pennagaram – 636810

¶10

M. Rajeswari, W/o. G.Murugesan, 58, Pattunoolkarah Street, Pennagaram – 636810

¶11

Mr. G. Murugesan, S/o. Govindan 58, Pattunoolkarah Street, Pennagaram – 636810

¶12

G. Vajjiran, S/o. Govindan, D.No. 4/17, Kuttur, Palayampudur, Dharmapuri – 636 807 ….Applicant

¶13

– Vs. –

¶14

DBS Bank Ltd, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Regional Office, Plantinum Jubilee Building, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore – 641001 ….Respondent

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. R. Ashraf Khan Counsel for Respondent Bank : M/s A. Arun Babu

SA No.15 of 2024

03.04.2025

ORDER ON SA No. 15 OF 2024

¶21

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 07.12.2023 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules]. 2. The applicant is borrower, who has filed the present S.A challenging the Possession Notice dated 15.09.2023 issued by respondent bank, for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,78,864.09p.

¶22

This case was moved before this Tribunal on 17.01.2024 by the applicant. The proceedings dated 17.01.2024 is extracted below:

¶23

Notice was ordered to respondent bank returnable by 23.02.2024.

¶24

On 23.02.2024, case was re-posted due to administrative reason to 13.03.2024. On 13.03.2024, applicant had filed AOS evidencing service of notice to respondent bank and memo reporting compliance of costs. Again fresh notice was ordered to respondent bank as none represented the bank. M/s A. Arun Babu, Advocates had filed vakalath for respondent bank on 30.07.2024. From 30.07.2024, case was posted to 22.08.2024, 21.10.2024, 03.01.2025, 21.03.2025 and to today i.e., 03.04.2025 for filing counter and typed set of documents by respondent bank. However, respondent bank did not file their counter despite filing vakalat on 30.07.2024 instance and receiving copy of SA on 23.08.2024.

SA No.15 of 2024

03.04.2025

Heard counsels for applicant, respondent bank and perused records.

¶29

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the Possession Notice dated 15.09.2023 issued by respondent bank

¶30

On hearing the applicant, notice in SA was given to respondent bank returnable by 23.02.2024 and the matter thus stood posted to 22.08.2024, 21.10.2024, 03.01.2025, 21.03.2025 and to today for filing counter and typed set of documents by respondent bank.

¶31

The Respondent Bank being the secured creditor is bound to assist the Tribunal in adjudicating the matter with regard to the measures initiated by the Bank under the Act. It is seen from the records that despite receiving the SA copy on 23.08.2024 instance, respondent bank did not file counter or objections countering all the contentions raised by the applicant in the SA, despite availing five adjournments, viz., 22.08.2024, 21.10.2024, 03.01.2025, 21.03.2025 and to today

¶32

The Tribunal under Section 17(1) is to adjudicate the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act and the Tribunal under S 17[5] the ACT is duty bound to dispose of the SA as expeditiously as possible within 60 days from the date of the application and total period of pendency of the application shall not exceed 04 months from the date of the application.

SA No.15 of 2024

03.04.2025

As the respondent bank has not come forward to counter all the allegations / averment in respect of the measures taken by the respondent bank under the Act, the present SA is only to be allowed.

¶37

Accordingly, SA stands allowed. Possession Notice dated 15.09.2023 is hereby set aside. Respondent bank is directed not to include the subject impugned Possession Notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account and file a memo to that effect before the Registry. Thereafter, respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶38

Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated. Pending IA/s if any

¶39

are disposed of in terms of this Order. No order as to cost.

¶40

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 03^rd day of April, 2025)

Sumangali Nagai Maligai v. Dbs Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumangali Nagai Maligai v. Dbs Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India versus M/S All Will Moulds and Dies

C Chitra and E Sasikala versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Syed Ali Fathima versus Hdfc Bank

Hdfc Bank versus M s Premier Cutting Tools

Hdfc Bank versus M s Handlom Choice

Sasikala Productions versus Indian Bank